Thursday, July 26, 2012

Published on 25 Jul 2012 by RussiIn the US there's been a new case of police abusing their power, this time in Southern Dallas. That's after one man was gunned down, causing angry crowds to take to the streets. It follows the shooting by police of two suspects in the city of Anaheim. RT's Ramon Galindo explores why those who're supposed to protect the people, are also killing them.

A serving police officer appeared before a court today facing three sexual offence charges and four under the Data Protection Act.

South Wales Police Detective Constable Jeffery Davies, 42, of Church Street, Pontsticill, Merthyr, based at Merthyr Tydfil Police Station, is pleading not guilty to all charges.

Llanelli Magistrates Court was told two of the counts related to alleged sexual touching through clothing and another allegedly involved indecent exposure.

The magistrates were told the offences under the Data Protection Act involved allegations Davies used the national police computer to research the background of social networking site friends....read more

ORIGINAL POST, JULY 23, 12:32 A.M.: A source is telling OC Weekly five shots were heard as another man was shot by police and believed to be dead. A resident of the neighborhood off of Guinida neighborhood said the shooting happened off of Guinida Lane and Palm Drive. About 200 protesters are on the scene.

Witnesses have told the source the man was handcuffed, then shot by police. No one is being allowed to take photos, according to the source. When a group tried to take photos from an upstairs apartment, police shined a bright light onto the residents to block the view.

More details to follow; story developing.

UPDATED, 1:15 A.M.: Gustavo here. City News Service is reporting that Anaheim police shot and killed a suspected car thief late last night in the 400 block of West Guinida Lane. The family is on the seen sobbing....read more

Witnesses to the fatal police shooting of an unarmed man in Anaheim, California say officers offered to buy up cell phone footage of the brutality that followed. The circumstances of the shooting are currently under investigation.­A few hours after shooting 24-year-old Manuel Diaz as he ran from police at around 4pm Saturday, officers unleashed rubber bullets and an attack dog on a crowd of witnesses – most of them women and children – who confronted police over the incident as they gathered evidence.

Diaz later died in hospital. Officials have yet to comment on what may have caused one of the officers to open fire.

The incident has resonated through the community, with demonstrations Sunday outside – and briefly inside – the Anaheim Police headquarters, as Police Chief John Welter prepared for a press-only news conference regarding the assault.

And now that the story has gained national attention, the Anaheim PD claims the crowd of witnesses became unruly following the shooting, alleging that they set a fire at an intersection in the neighborhood, while others threw bottles and rocks at officers.

However, a news video posted to YouTube shows local CBS affiliate footage of what appears to be police storming a block filled mostly with women and children, many of them sitting in lawn chairs – with no fire in sight.

Local CBS reporter Jay Jackson confirms in the report that by shortly before 10pm Saturday, there was in fact a dumpster fire in the neighborhood after local residents formed a small protest, demanding answers from police. The Associated Press also now reports that dumpster fires were started on at least three occasions.

In the YouTube video, police are clearly seen firing rubber bullets on a crowd of horrified women and children. Shortly thereafter a German Shepherd enters view, attacking a woman and her child and then a man sitting next to them.

Towards the end of the video, Jackson says that "at least four" people present during the fracas told him that officers on the scene offered to "buy" cell phone video footage of the incident from witnesses.

Anaheim police officials are refraining from commenting on the circumstances of the attack or its aftermath, as the incident is still under investigation. The officer who shot Diaz has been put on desk duty.

The Metropolitan policeattempted to keep the disciplinary record of PC Simon Harwood secret from the family of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper seller he struck with a baton and pushed to the ground at G20 protests, it can now be reported.

Lawyers for the force tried and failed to argue that disclosing the litany of complaints about Harwood's conduct would have breached his privacy, saying the officer's disciplinary history did not have "any relevance" to Tomlinson's death.

Harwood, 45, who was found not guilty of Tomlinson's manslaughter on Thursday, had repeatedly been accused of using excessive force during his career, including claims he punched, throttled, kneed and unlawfully arrested people.

The jury in the trial were not told about the history of complaints, despite a submission from the Crown Prosecution Service, which argued that in two of the disciplinary matters he was accused of using heavy-handed tactics against the public "when they presented no threat".

The application was rejected by the judge, Mr Justice Fulford, who said: "The jury, in effect, would have to conduct three trials."

The inquest jury – which concluded last year that Tomlinson was "unlawfully killed" by the police officer – was also prevented from hearing the details of the complaints.

The conclusion of the trial means it is now possible to report details of a pre-inquest hearing in February last year at London's Old Bailey.

The Met, represented by Samantha Leek QC, played down the significance of Harwood's disciplinary files, and argued they should not be shown to lawyers for the family, who at the time suspected they might be of relevance to his inquest.

Arguing the files should be kept secret, the force said: "Disciplinary records concern the private employment data of an individual."

Eventually, the Met was instructed to share the files with interested parties. When lawyers from Tomlinson's family were able to inspect the disciplinary records – which filled five lever-arch folders – they discovered detailed complaints containing several allegations of physical assaults.

In one case, a fellow police officer complained that Harwood grabbed a suspect by the throat, punched him twice in the face and pushed him into a table, causing it to break.

In another, Harwood was accused of assaulting a driver after a road rage incident, and then altering his notes afterwards. In a third, a member of the public reported seeing Harwood kneeing a man in the kidney while he was handcuffed to the ground.

Nine of the complaints were dismissed or unproven, but one, in which Harwood admitted he had gone into "red mist mode" before unlawfully accessing the police national computer, was upheld.

Harwood was able to avoid disciplinary action by retiring from the Met, rejoining the force three days later in a civilian role and then reapplying to enter uniformed ranks – a move the police watchdog has said was "staggering".

Jules Carey of Tuckers solicitors said: "The Metropolitan police and PC Harwood's lawyers argued that the Tomlinson family should not be able to see PC Harwood's records as they said that they were not relevant 'to any issue to be investigated by the inquest' and that they were private.

"It was surreal being forced to argue about the potential relevance of records without being permitted sight of them. When Ian's family did finally learn of the content of the records, they were shocked at the number of allegations and complaints that had been made about this officer."

He added: "Their view remains, that if the disciplinary and vetting procedures actually worked in the forces that employed Harwood he would not have been on duty at the G20."

The Met said in a statement: "At the pre-inquest hearing into the death of Mr Tomlinson, the MPS was invited by the Coroner to offer a submission on the issue of disclosure of PC Harwood's disciplinary record.

The MPS expressed a view that this should not be disclosed as it was not relevant to determining the cause of Mr Tomlinson's death and could potentially impact on any future criminal proceedings. The MPS further submitted, however, that the balance would lie in favour of disclosure if the Coroner determined that it was of relevance to establishing the cause of death."

Friday, July 20, 2012

Three women, including two who were assaulted by taxi driver John Worboys, say police failings breached their human rights

Two of the women suing the Met were sexually assaulted by taxi driver John Worboys. Photograph: Metropolitan police/AP

Women who say they were let down by the Metropolitan policewhen they reported rape and sexual assault, including two who were attacked by the taxi driver John Worboys, are suing the force.

The women are attempting to establish that police who fail to investigate such crimes properly are violating victims' human rights.

If successful, the claims would be landmark cases, which would confirm that the state has a legal duty to investigate rape and sexual assault thoroughly and competently, the women's lawyers said. They added that such a ruling would also help future victims and give committed officers a legal basis from which to argue for more resources.

In 2010 an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) inquiry found that Worboys remained free to prey on women because officers made serious mistakes and failed to take victims seriously. Five Met officers were disciplined.

Worboys was jailed indefinitely in 2009 after being found guilty of 19 charges of drugging and sexually assaulting 12 women, in one case raping his victim. He has been linked to 85 sex crimes but is suspected of being responsible for more than 100 attacks.

One of the claimants who was assaulted by Worboys said she still had nightmares about what happened when she went to police. "It rings in my ears, the officer saying 'a black cab driver just wouldn't do it'," she said.

"It felt like they didn't want to know. In my dreams I'm screaming 'why won't you believe me?'."They need to sort this now and give me some peace of mind. I need closure."

Four officers were disciplined over the case of the third woman bringing legal action, who was 15 when she told police she had been raped. The defendant was acquitted and the IPCC said there were "significant errors" in an investigation that "fell far short of what [the woman] had a basic right to expect".

An internal inquiry into the case, managed by the commission, described a department that was "understaffed, underskilled and overburdened".

The woman's mother said: "We have to do this, because we don't think they should be allowed to get away with it. It's never been about money. It's just the injustice, and the fact we don't want it to happen to someone else."

The women are seeking a declaration that their human rights were breached. All three have previously received apologies from the Met over the way their cases were handled. But their lawyers said they had been caused further distress the force's attempt to block the cases by arguing they have been brought too late.

Harriet Wistrich, who represents the Worboys claimants, said she found the Met's approach "incomprehensible".

"They have been roundly criticised for extremely serious failings in their investigation, yet they are using public money to defend a case, causing further distress to my clients," she said.

Mike Schwartz, a human rights lawyer from Bindmans, said: "The government's obligations to protect its citizen's rights extend beyond simply criminalising sexual assaults and rapes. The police must properly investigate and prosecute serious allegations. The courts recognise that rights are meaningless unless they are enforceable."

Last month the court of appeal ruled that the case relating to the 2005 allegations should proceed despite being out of time. Arguments are ongoing about whether Worboys victims' claims should be heard.

Debaleena Dasgupta, who is representing the claimant in the 2005 case, said: "Our clients want acknowledgment for what has been done to them, and acknowledgment that it was wrong.

"How much better will they feel if, after all they have been through, they know that once that declaration is made, all future victims can rely on the judgment for accountability?

"The judgments would also provide clarification for the police so they know their duties and can take steps to improve their work.

"For those officers determined to do a good job but obstructed by a lack of will from others, this would give them a strong basis to argue for what they need in order to do their jobs properly."

Dasgupta said police should waive the issue of timing and "show some compassion" by arguing the cases on their facts. "Instead they argue about time limits, to prevent, it would seem, the important matter of whether they owe a legal duty to investigate from being determined.

They are causing further delay and distress to people already traumatised."

The taxi driver's victim said: "I just wish the police would have the common decency to see that I've been through enough. It feels like they're turning the knife at every opportunity, still rubbing salt in. Now I'm at the stage where I can't let it go. I can't walk away."

A spokesman for the Met said: "The matter is ongoing, therefore it would be inappropriate to discuss further."

Former police officers were paid millions in consultancy fees by the Association of Chief Police Officers, an investigation found.

Sir Hugh denied the “jobs for the boys” accusation and insisted the lack of spending control was “more for pragmatic than sinister reasonsPhoto: AFP/GETTY

It revealed a catalogue of mismanagement and led to complaints of “jobs for the boys”.

One former officer was paid £602,000 over more than eight years and pay levels were as high as £1,100 a day.

The inquiry by the association found that 72 consultants had been employed between April 2009 and March 2012 at a cost of £4.1 million. Almost half, 35, were former officers, with another three former police civilian staff. In some cases, no recruitment details or contracts could be found, while there was also evidence of appointments being made on personal recommendation without any selection process.

The association president, Sir Hugh Orde, said that, in a radical overhaul, non-executive directors with no police background would be appointed to the board for the first time.

Julian Smith, Conservative MP for Skipton and Ripon, who secured a Commons debate on the issue in April, said the association was operating a “jobs for the boys club” and accused the organisation of a “shoddy approach to looking after public money”.

“It’s a damning indictment of ACPO, demonstrating a lack of care over how public money is spent, particularly when it involved paying former senior police officers large amounts of money. There don’t appear to have been any guidelines on how this was being done. It’s further proof that ACPO should be scrapped and consigned to history,” he said. “These are men who are among the most trustworthy leaders in the land and they have shown they are not up to it.”

Sir Hugh denied the “jobs for the boys” accusation and insisted the lack of spending control was “more for pragmatic than sinister reasons”.

He accepted there had been concerns over how consultants had been appointed to ACPO’s anti-terrorism team but said this was out of a desire for a speedy, co-ordinated response after the 7/7 bombings in London.

“There was massive investment in TAM (Terrorism and Allied Matters) post 7/7 to get it up and running. With no capacity they got staff up on to contract quickly and ex-cops fitted the bill because they knew what they were doing,” he said.

“I’m not embarrassed. It’s concerning in the sense that this is public money and there are procedures in place that people didn’t follow. But this is not a secretive 'jobs for the boys club’, people have been pragmatically trying to get the job done.”

The report said: “This review has found a lack of central oversight, recording or evaluation of work undertaken by contractors and consultants across business areas nationally.

It has also identified that details relating to the recruitment and/or engagement of temporary staff across the business areas were at best not accessible, or at worse did not exist at all.” The inquiry concluded that changes to ACPO’s contracting procedures “should be adopted without delay”.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman. He is also author of the acclaimed Jack of Kent blog.

Simon Harwood was acquitted of the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests. Photo: Getty

PC Simon Harwood, a thug, has today been found not guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson, even though another jury had previously found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed.
The Coroner’s Inquest had previously decided as follows:

Time, place and circumstances at or in which injury was sustained:

Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on 1st April 2009 during the G20 demonstrations.

He was fatally injured at around 19.20 in Royal Exchange Buildings (the Passage), near to the junction with Cornhill, London EC3. This was as a result of a baton strike from behind and a push in the back by a police officer which caused Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily.

Both the baton strike and the push were excessive and unreasonable.

As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death.
At the time of the strike and the push, Mr Tomlinson was walking away from the police line. He was complying with police instructions to leave Royal Exchange Buildings (the Passage). He posed no threat.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

I believe there is only one explanation for PC Simon Harwood being found NOT GUILTY for his deliberate act of brutality that killed innocent Mr Ian Tomlinson. The jury were NOBBLED. I’m going to the protest outside Scotland Yard now so I will write the rest of this article later.

I will explain then how I think juries get nobbled by our famous justice system.

Simon Harwood is a murderer and he will always be a murderer!

Met police officer cleared of manslaughter over death of bystander hit with baton and pushed to the ground

PC Simon Harwood has been acquitted over the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in 2009. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

A policeman has been acquitted of killing Ian Tomlinson during G20 protests in London by striking the 47-year-old bystander with a baton and pushing him to the ground as he walked away from police lines.

The jury at Southwark crown court on Thursday cleared PC Simon Harwood, 45, a member of the Metropolitan police's elite public order unit, the Territorial Support Group, of manslaughter following one of the most high-profile cases of alleged police misconduct in recent years.Harwood told the court that while in retrospect he "got it wrong" in seeing Tomlinson as a potentially threatening obstruction as police cleared a pedestrian passageway in the City on the evening of 1 April 2009, his actions were justifiable within the context of the widespread disorder of that day.

The jury's verdict, after four days of deliberations, brings about something of a legal contradiction: 14 months ago another jury, at the inquest into Tomlinson's death, ruled that he was unlawfully killed by Harwood. The inquest ruling was made on the same burden of proof as a criminal trial, that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now.

This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver after a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions.

Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.

He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.

The verdict will come as a huge disappointment to Tomlinson's family, following a saga that began when the father of four, who was stepfather to his wife's five other children, collapsed as he tried to make his way home through police lines. It followed a day of protests connected to the meeting in London of leaders from the G20 group of nations. He died shortly afterwards.Tomlinson had been an alcoholic for some years and was living in a homeless hostel. It was initially presumed he died from natural causes, a conclusion supported by an initial postmortem examination, which gave the cause as heart failure.

But six days later the Guardian published video footage, shot by an American in London on business, which showed a policeman in riot gear striking Tomlinson on the leg with a baton before shoving him violently to the pavement, minutes before his final collapse.

Three pathologists involved in two further postmortem examinations said Tomlinson instead died from internal bleeding associated with his liver and consistent with being pushed to the ground. While the officer was soon identified as Harwood, prosecutors initially decided against charging him, changing their mind only after the inquest verdict.

The trial hinged on two key questions: firstly, whether Harwood's actions amounted to a criminal assault; then, whether they directly led to Tomlinson's death.

The first issue was simple, the prosecution argued: Harwood carried out "a gratuitous act of aggression", Mark Dennis QC told the jury. Harwood had recklessly abandoned the police van he was designated to drive to arrest a man seen writing graffiti on another vehicle. Humiliated when the man wriggled free, he opted to join a line of other officers clearing a pedestrian passageway by the Royal Exchange complex.

But in his evidence Harwood said he had been separated from his van by a threatening crowd before following orders to clear the passage. He insisted his actions towards Tomlinson were correct at the time, a version of events supported by two other officers at the scene called as defence witnesses.

The issue of cause of death saw the testimony of the first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, who reasserted his belief that Tomlinson died from heart failure, placed against that of Dr Nat Cary, who told the court that even a relatively small amount of internal bleeding would have caused death. The jury was not told that Patel has twice been suspended by medical authorities for mistakes in other postmortem examinations and is no longer on the Home Office's register of approved pathologists.

No police officer has been convicted for manslaughter for a crime committed while on duty since 1986.

Ian Puddick, pictured with his wife Leena, said: 'It is absolutely a victory for the small man.' Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

A man has been cleared of harassing his wife's millionaire lover on the internet in "a victory for free speech and the small man".

Plumber Ian Puddick tweeted, blogged and posted videos online after being enraged by his wife Leena's 10-year affair with Timothy Haynes, a City director.

As district judge Elizabeth Roscoe dismissed two charges of internet harassment following a three-day trial at Westminster magistrates' court, he said: "I am just absolutely relieved."

Puddick, 41, now reconciled with his wife, kissed her as he said: "It is absolutely a victory for free speech and the small man. I'm a plumber and drive a Transit."

He set up several websites and confronted Haynes after finding out about the affair through reading a text message on his wife's phone, and discovering photographs of Haynes performing sex acts.

Haynes, 52, from Billingshurst, West Sussex, admitted he had been deceitful, but said Puddick should have taken up his anger with him alone.

Puddick's wife met Haynes after joining an insurance firm in 1997, with the extramarital affair beginning following a Christmas party in 2002. The court heard Haynes was sending her 30 to 40 text messages a day, some with graphic sexual detail, and they often ate out together on his expenses.

Puddick, of Enfield, north London, claimed he decided to expose the relationship after finding out Haynes was using company expenses to fund the affair, taking his wife to "wonderful places around the country".

He described his shock when his home was later raided by anti-terror police at 6am, with officers removing phones, computers and even his satnavs.

The judge ruled Puddick's actions did not form a "course of conduct" and dismissed the charges.

It spent £427,00 on the plastic baton rounds bought from overseas, even though they did not pass UK safety standards and cannot be used here.The purchase was made to bolster police forces in the aftermath of last summer's inner-city riots, but the wasted money risks stretching budgets which have already been slashed.

Non-lethal force: An officer of the Metropolitan Police special firearms unit SO19 demonstrates a baton round gun on the firing range in Epping Forest

It was part of more than £806,000 lost through blunders by officials, which also included a botched property transaction.The waste was revealed in the Home Office's accounts for the year ending March 2012, under a section headed 'Fruitless payments'. The report describes them as 'payments for which liability ought not to have been incurred or where the demand for the goods or services in question could have been cancelled in time to avoid liability'.

More...

The report goes on: 'A fruitless payment of £427,000 was made for baton rounds that passed testing in the country of manufacture but not in the UK. 'This meant they could not be used in the UK.'The news is the latest in a string of procurement disasters by Whitehall. The Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health have come under particular criticism for wasting money on botched purchases.The Government last month announced it could bring in the private sector to take responsibility for purchases in a last ditch attempt to remedy Whitehall's spendthrift culture.

Expensive mistake: Home Office officials spend nearly £500,000 on the baton rounds which were not cleared for use in the UK

David Hanson MP, Labour's Shadow Policing Minister, told the Daily Telegraph: 'The level of incompetence demonstrated in wasting £427,000 of taxpayers' money on rubber bullets without thinking to check whether they meet UK safety standards is frankly breathtaking. 'The Home Office is lurching from one shambles to the next on an almost daily basis, with an utter lack of effective leadership from Government.'What will concern people most is that the Home Secretary is either unwilling or unable to get a grip on her department to deal with these failures.'The blunder has emerged as the Home Office struggles with the G4S Olympic security fiasco and its UK Border Agency has come under fire for its handling of queues at Airports.The Home Office's accounts also reveal that it expects to spend £11.2million renovating a grade 1 listed used as a police training centre.It has also been calculated that the summer riots could cost the Home Office nearly £100million in damages, mostly in propery insurance claims.

An award winning police community support officer was jailed for six months today for issuing hundreds of false fixed penalty notices.

Desperate for success: Policeman George McNaught falsely issued hundreds of fines to be successful at work

PCSO George McNaught, 48, was found guilty of targeting unwitting members of the public, mainly cyclists, and fining them in what the Judge called an abuse of trust and power.The sentencing came after the Scot was the first PCSO in London to be awarded the commendation of the High Sheriff of London for wrestling a gun out of the hands of a woman as she pointed it at a young boy at Victoria station in 2009.But the Westminster-based PCSO was so desperate for success he started inventing bogus notices, usually for cycling on the pavement.Mr McNaught targeted unwitting members of the public after finding their details on items of lost property.Some victims paid the fines – which ranged from £45 to £320 - while others spent hours arguing about them in court.One ticket was issued to a man who had suffered nerve damage to his arm in an accident and could not even ride a bike, Blackfriars Crown Court heard.Bailiffs were also sent to the home of another woman who had been handed a false notice.Although the exact number of false notices issued is not known, investigating detectives found at least 350 suspect tickets between February 2010 and September last year.

He was caught out after a complaint was made by a man, fined for cycling on the pavement at the Strand.When police searched Mr McNaught’s home they also found a canister of CS gas, known as tear gas, which had been reported missing from a police locker room.

Humiliated victims: One woman was falsely fined £320 by Mr McNaught and was left embarrassed and humiliated

Prosecutor Fallon Alexis gave several examples of individuals who had received the notices.She said: ‘One woman, Hailey Harrington, had been stopped at Victoria Coach station with friends, had bailiffs come to her house after she was ordered to pay £320 in fines.‘She had to come to a subsequent court hearing and in her own words felt embarrassed and humiliated, due to Mr McNaught.‘Another man, Chris Stamp, who paid a £45 fine later told police that in fact he had an accident in 1997 in the Cambridge area and he had suffered nerve damage to his left arm and shoulder and he said in a police statement that he could not use a bicycle if he wanted to.’Judge John Hillen told Mr McNaught his actions were ‘crazy’.He said: ‘It’s an abuse of power by someone who is given power and then decides to use that power in a bad way.‘As a PCSO he had a power and used it in a crazy way which is extremely harmful.

Lost property: Mr McNaught targeted cyclists using personal details found on lost property

‘You have a positively good character, for some seven years as a PCSO in which I’m told you loved, and indeed did extremely well in.‘You were serving the public but that trust placed in you, you abused.‘What motivated you is and remains entirely unclear.‘There was no financial gain, there was no corruption, there was no acting on behalf of criminals or friends.‘It seems to me, what you chose to do having been given power, was to abuse that power.‘The public have to be confident in the fixed penalty notice system and you undermined that confidence.‘Confidence in the PCSO community has also been undermined.’Ann-Marie Talbot, defending, said Mr McNaught had since been sacked after working as a PCSO for seven years and moved back to his native Scotland where he worked as a part time cleaner.She said: ‘This was not misconduct for financial gain.‘It would appear there was no motivation other than a desire to be successful in his job.‘I don’t think he understands himself though what led him to take these actions.’Mr McNaught admitted one count of misconduct in a public office and possession of a prohibited weapon.

The judge that oversaw the murder case against Warren Hill back in 1991 agreed that the defendant was “mentally retarded” by a “preponderance of the evidence,” but the Georgia State Supreme Court insists that that’s not enough to spare the inmate from an execution scheduled for July 18. The high court of the state says Mr. Hill’s intellectual disability needs to be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” making Georgia the only state in the US that requires such strict interpretation when considering killing its prisoners. Now unless the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles steps up to the plate, Mr. Hill will be killed in just over one week."Executing Warren Hill, a 52-year-old man whom a court has found to be more likely than not mentally retarded, would be a terrible miscarriage of justice," attorney Brian Kammer, one of Hill’s layers, tells the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Intelligence tests offered to Mr. Hill have put his IQ score at 70, the upper cusp for what the American Association of Mental Retardation considers mental retardation. Kammer says that he will ask the State Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant his client clemency, but at this point the date of execution is only a week away.

Hill’s 1991 conviction was brought back up in 2003 when the state’s Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision and reinstated the death sentence against the inmate because the severity of his disability could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It went to the Eleventh US Circuit Court of Appeals, only for those justices to agree that federal law "mandates that this federal court leave the Georgia Supreme Court decision alone — even if we believe it incorrect or unwise."

In that same ruling, one justice even expressed, “we hold that the conclusion reached by the Georgia Supreme Court — that the Eighth Amendment protects only those capital offenders whose retardation is ‘significant enough’ to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt — eviscerates the command of the Eighth Amendment that the mentally retarded shall not be executed.”

The case was sent to the US Supreme Court earlier this year, but in June they denied examining the particular of Mr. Hill’s convictions, allowing the execution to be established for next week.

Amnesty International has created a petition to be sent to Albert Murray, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles chair, asking for the state to reconsider the execution. Because Georgia is the only state that requires mental disability to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Amnesty International notes that “Mr. Hill would not likely be facing execution had his crime been committed outside of Georgia.”

“Several jurors who sat on Warren’s original jury have since stated under oath that they would have sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole had that been an option at the time of his 1991 trial, particularly after learning of the evidence of his intellectual disability and history of childhood abuse,” Amnesty International adds.

In an editorial published by Law.com, Eric E. of the Georgia Council on Developmental Disabilities writes, “granting mercy to Hill would finally acknowledge the nationally recognized safeguards for defendants with developmental and intellectual disabilities on death row, and protect the constitutionally mandated rights of men and women with these disabilities.”

Harris was sentenced to death after killing a man behind bars while already in jail for murder.

Monday, July 9, 2012

The hunt for a gunman suspected of killing an off-duty policeman in Essex has continued through the night.

PC Ian Dibell, 41, was shot dead in Clacton-on-Sea on Monday afternoon - his chief constable said he had been a "brave neighbourhood officer".Essex Police have vowed to "not rest" until the man suspected of the attack, Peter Reeve, 64, has been detained.PC Dibell is thought to have been killed when he tried to intervene in a dispute. A second man was wounded.Mr Reeve, who is believed to be armed, has been described as dangerous by police, who said he should not be approached.He is described as white, about 5ft 10ins tall with short, greyish hair, wearing jeans and possibly glasses. He comes from the Clacton area.Speaking at a news conference on Monday night, Essex Police Chief Constable Jim Barker-McCardle said PC Dibell was "an experienced and professional neighbourhood police officer" who "deliberately intervened in what he knew was an extremely deadly situation".'Woman's scream'The chief constable said: "Policing is a family and we are all hurting."This dreadful event reminds us all that policing is a mission that ultimately some die for."We will not rest until we have Peter Reeve in custody - the investigation will continue round the clock."Residents of Redbridge Road in the seaside town described hearing shooting and screaming at about 15:40 BST.

PC Ian Dibell was an "experienced neighbourhood police officer"

A 45-year-old woman, who lives yards from the scene, said she heard "a lot of commotion" and saw a man running up the road.Hazel Field, 75, who lives in Redbridge Road, said: "I was in the garden at the time and heard a gunshot, followed by a woman's scream."Then I heard another gunshot, followed by about five more."Eric Long, 80, said he saw the gunman from his window: "I saw him standing with some kind of revolver. "He was chasing somebody, firing as he went."When police arrived at the scene, they found PC Dibell dead and another man with serious leg injuries lying in the street. He is receiving hospital treatment for gunshot wounds to the leg.A white tent now stands where the police officer was shot.Paying tribute to him, Mark Smith, chairman of the Essex Police Federation, said: "Constable Ian Dibell was a dedicated professional officer who, even though off duty, has paid the ultimate sacrifice for his bravery and selfless actions in trying to protect his local community."Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: "The death of our colleague in Essex is deeply sad news for the police service. "PC Ian Dibell died while knowingly walking towards danger, as police officers are called upon to do on behalf of the public they serve."The courage he showed in stepping up to do his duty, without thought for his own safety, sums up what it means to be a police officer."

Essex Police have released a photograph of the man they are searching for in connection with the fatal shooting of a serving police officer in Clacton.

Police are urging members of the public to take great care and not to approach Peter Reeve who is believed to be armed.

Armed officers are searching for the 64-year-old man who is believed to have shot dead the serving police officer and injured another man following a shooting off Redbridge Road.

Police were contacted shortly after 3:30pm on Monday, July 9, 2012 following reports of shotgun fire. They arrived and found one man dead and one man with serious leg injuries lying in the street.

Reeve is described as white, around 5ft 10in tall with short greyish hair. He was wearing jeans and possibly glasses. He comes from the Clacton area and should not be approached.Residents are being urged to remain indoors while armed officers locate the gunman. Neighbourhood policing officers are maintaining a high-profile and visible presence in the community, supporting victims and witnesses.

Monday, July 2, 2012

Graham Power: 'I was suspended by the very government whose institutions were being investigated. You cannot get much more conflicted than that." Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

Before moving to Jersey to take charge of the island's policein 2000, Graham Power had served in the senior ranks of four other forces in a career spanning more than 30 years. A recipient of the Queen's Medal for distinguished service, he had been vetted by UK authorities to "top secret" level and was so well regarded that he had also been appointed an assessor for the body that selects chief officers for UK constabularies.

But after eight successful years on Jersey, Power found himself suddenly suspended in what one local politician supporter believes was a "coup d'etat engineered by a small group of powerful people who denied him natural justice".

The initial suspension, which related to Power's management and supervision of a child abuse inquiry centred around Haut de la Garenne, a children's home on the island, continues to be a hugely controversial topic in Jersey. It's an episode which Jersey's critics see as a prime example of the way the island's elite treats those who dare to challenge their authority.

Nine months before Power's suspension on 12 November 2008, the historic child abuse investigation made headlines around the globe after Power's deputy, Lenny Harper, told the world's media he thought his team had found human remains buried under Haut de la Garenne. He told hordes of journalists that suspicious forensic material discovered during excavation tallied with accounts given by various abuse victims of hearing children dragged from their beds at night who were then never seen again. .

By the time Power was suspended, Harper had retired. The very day Power was suspended, the new officer in charge of the inquiry, Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell,said at his first press conferencethat there had never been compelling evidence to justify the excavation, and much of what was found there did not suggest murder, contrary to initial police reports.

"There are no credible allegations of murder, there are no suspects for murder and no specific time period for murder," said Gradwell. To this day, Harper vigorously defends the way he carried out the investigation.

Forensic experts still disagree over whether suspicious material found during the excavation of the home was 20th century human bone or a piece of coconut shell, and no one has ever been able to explain the discovery of 65 milk teeth found in the building's cellar. But Jersey's authorities eventually accepted they had failed some children in their care "in a serious way", and earlier this year opened a compensation scheme promising to pay victims up to £60,000 each for their distress.

The States of Jersey have also agreed to hold an independent "committee of inquiry" into child abuse within the island's care system.

By the time the historic abuse investigation was closed in December 2010, eight people had been prosecuted as a result of the Power inquiry – a far lower number than initially expected. Just four related to Haut de la Garenne, with one abuser receiving a light sentence having himself been abused at the home.

Power, as well as child abuse survivors the Guardian has spoken to on the island, claim that after his suspension, some victims lost faith in the investigation. He said: "After my suspension a police officer working in the incident room approached me in the street and told me that incident room staff were busy dealing with calls from victims who were distressed after hearing that I had been suspended and were saying that 'it would all be covered up again'. I have had similar messages from people close to victims and from individual victims who do not wish to be named."

David Warcup, Power's replacement, insisted at the end of the investigation that there was "no evidence from which it would be possible to mount any further prosecutions."

As Power sees it, his suspension was a punishment for daring to challenge Jersey's "secrecy culture" by investigating serious allegations made against some of the island's power players. Worse, by allowing Harper to talk freely to the media during the investigation, both men were damaging Jersey's reputation abroad – a nightmare for a small place with an economy so dependent on foreign finance that it as Power claims, had a "heightened sensitivity to reputational damage". Or as the Liberal MP John Hemming puts it: "I think he was suspended because he was too ethical. That is very worrying."

On Tuesday this week, politicians in the States of Jersey, the island's parliament, debated behind closed doors whether Andrew Lewis, the minister responsible for Power's suspension, had misled States members as to the reasons why he removed Power from office.

The deputy who demanded the debate, Mike Higgins, said disclosure was needed to "right a wrong". He wanted the parliament to agree to release a transcript of a States session held "in camera" shortly after Power's suspension, in which Lewis gave what Higgins believes is a misleading statement relating to Power's suspension.

Power was never found guilty of any charges of misconduct, and remained on full pay throughout his two-year suspension, which lasted until his retirement in July 2010. Contacted by the Guardian this week, Lewis insisted the reasons for suspending Power were "compelling". He said: "The act of suspension was fully in line with the disciplinary code and was a neutral act in order to give the chief officer sufficient time to defend his position uncompromised by the constraints of office." He could not go into more detail about the evidence which led him to suspend Power, he said, because he was "bound by the confidentiality requirements in the chief police officer's discipline code." He strongly rejected any allegations of a conspiracy.

Power is not the only one who feels cast out after asking difficult questions. In 2012, an American author and journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, found herself banned from the UK and Channel Islands, which she says followed the Jersey establishment discovering she was writing a book about the historic child abuse inquiry focussed on Haut de la Garenne. Both the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and Jersey's customs and immigrations service insist her ban was unrelated to her journalistic investigations. But Goodman believes differently, having been flagged by Jersey customs officials as a potential criminal as soon as they found out what she was doing on the island – information she says she offered voluntarily after requesting a meeting to check that a flat and office she had leased in St Helier conformed to Jersey's strict rules on accommodation for so-called "non-qualified" residents.

A spokeswoman for the UK Border Force told the Guardian: "Ms Goodman was refused entry to the UK because we were not satisfied she was genuinely seeking entry as a visitor for the limited period she claimed. Further enquires showed that she attempted to mislead the Border Force officer about her travel plans and the reason she required entry to the UK."

Goodman disputes this. She said: "To date, the UK Border Force can do little more than accuse me of intending to possibly commit a future transgression, as it has been forced to admit there has been none. This has been a bit like the film Minority Report, in that I am being pursued for something that hasn't actually taken place. As a former Tier-1 visa holder with a spotless record, I was surprised to be locked up, denied legal representation and banned from a country for which I've always held the highest respect. I have never misled the UK Border Force, nor have I ever intended to. I do realise it is a delicate situation, but I hope I might finish my work."

Charities have also encountered problems after questioning Jersey's modus operandi. In May, ActionAid and Christian Aid, both of which have been critical of the island for providing shelter to tax avoiders, were two of 20 charities that lost support for their general overseas aid projects from Jersey's Overseas Aid Commission.

Announcing the decision last month, the commission chairman, Paul Routier, insisted the move was not motivated by political or religious factors, and said the two charities had still received approval to collect funding to provide disaster and emergency relief.

As Hemming sees it, Jersey's current system is compromised by nepotism and conflicts of interest which result in the most powerful protecting each other. "For the checks and balances to work, people cannot be related or close friends," said Hemming. "The problem in Jersey is that things are covered up rather than dealt with. That arises with any small group of people where conflicts of interest are built into the system."

Arriving on Jersey at the start of the new millennium after a successful spell as deputy to HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, Power soon realised there were special challenges policing a small island where everybody knew each other. "In Jersey there are often school and family connections between police officers, lawyers, politicians and criminals," he told the Guardian.

"This can of course happen in any small community. In the UK, forces deal with this by ensuring that police officers are rarely asked to police the community they were brought up in. In Jersey that is not possible. The island is nine miles by five and there is only one police station. We were constantly having to deal with issues where somebody involved in a case appeared to have a conflict of interest, or worse than that, where there appeared to be a leak of intelligence from inside the force which benefitted criminals who might have had some connection within the organisation."

In a signed affidavit he submitted when applying for judicial review to his suspension in 2009, he claimed that one of the officials on the island who played a "significant role" in his suspension publicly defended a suspect in the historic abuse investigation. "If anyone wants to get ____[the suspect], they will have to get me first," said Bill Ogley, chief executive of Jersey's civil service, according to Power. This show of support was applauded by a number of civil servants present, he added. Ogley denies having made these comments.

Power believes his suspension sets a disturbing precedent which needs to be challenged. Otherwise, he said in his affidavit: "There are potentially serious consequences for the independence and integrity of law enforcement in the island and an additional risk that future police actions will be subject to inappropriate political pressure and intimidation."

Power firmly believes his suspension was orchestrated by Frank Walker, then occupying the top political job on the island as chief minister.

In his signed affidavit, Power says he attended a meeting just before Lewis took over where Walker unleashed a "verbal attack on the historic abuse inquiry claiming that it was causing damaging publicly for the island."

When contacted by the Guardian last week, Walker declined to comment on this or any of 14 other claims put to him, saying: "I am surprised that you are seeking to raise questions which have been asked and answered many times in the years since Mr Power's suspension. I'm afraid I am not prepared to yet again go over such old ground. I will merely say that I was then, and remain today, absolutely confident that Mr Power's suspension was necessary and appropriate. His conspiracy theories are entirely baseless."

He refused to explain why he believed Power's suspension was justified, nor to comment on a claim made by a deputy in the Jersey's parliament, Paul le Claire, who in the debating chamber alleged that he took part in a conversation between Walker and Lewis in which they discussed "getting rid" of Harper. Le Claire only went public on this two years after the fact, explaining in an interview with the Jersey blog Voice For Children

that he had been too scared to talk out. He claimed there was on the island a culture of fear which deterred ordinary people from speaking out.

Higgins, the Jersey politician who tried to "right the wrong" of Power's suspension in Tuesday's parliamentary sitting, told the Guardian: "Jersey, like other small island states, has a small powerful elite which pervades all sections of public and private life and which uses its positions and influence to its advantage. In my opinion, the investigation and handling of the police investigation into Haut de la Garenne was not only acutely embarrassing to them but it also opened up a can of worms that they did not want exposed.

"In my opinion, Mr Power's original suspension resembled a coup d'etat engineered by a small group of powerful people who denied him natural justice and have attempted since then to thwart enquiries, investigations and scrutiny into this affair and the original child abuse investigations. They have been aided and abetted by a politicised civil service, compliant media and other well meaning but naive politicians".

It is a common complaint on Jersey that the island's media, particularly the only newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post (JEP), were more concerned with protecting the island's reputation than the victims of child abuse. In January, the Jersey Care Leavers' Association complained to the island's Health and Social Services department, after a JEP article seemed to disparage the compensation scheme soon to be announced for the victims. In a column, a JEP journalist had written: "By the way, you're about to pay out millions upon millions to abuse victims in civil compensation claims. That'll do wonders for the island's image, right?"

It is largely due to two tenacious bloggers, Rico Sorda (ricosorda.blogspot.com) and Neil McMurray (Voiceforchildren.blogspot.com) that Power's suspension has remained so high on the political agenda. Both complain that the JEP has failed to investigate what they see as the injustice of Power's treatment.

Senior politicians were also accused of putting Jersey's interests ahead of the vulnerable and abused. In a notorious 2008 speech to mark the island's liberation from the Nazis, Sir Philip Bailhache, then the island's bailiff, came under fire afterhe said : "All child abuse, wherever it happens, is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal."

Bailache, now an elected politician in the States of Jersey, was one of 19 MPs who on Tuesday voted against holding the "in camera" debate on whether Lewis as home affairs minister misled the States over Power's suspension. He is also known to have opposed the committee of inquiry soon to be set up to investigate how so many children being looked after by the Jersey authorities were abused.

Two years ago, a QC from the mainland, Brian Napier, was commissioned to produce an independent report into Power's ousting. He found no evidence of any conspiracy, but ruled that the suspension could not be justified by hard evidence.

In his report, Napier wrote: "Whatever view may now be taken of the substantive criticisms that have been made of Mr Power's conduct of the historic abuse inquiry, there was at the time a lack of hard evidence against him showing lack of competence in relation to the running of the historic abuse inquiry, the basis on which he was suspended on 12 November 2008 was in my view inadequate."

He added: "There were indications that Mr Power had not done his job well. But that is as far as it goes."

Napier found that at the time of the suspension meeting, Lewis had not read a key report later relied on to justify Power's ousting. The report, conducted by the Metropolitan police, was a standard critical appraisal, fairly common between police forces. It was never intended for any disciplinary use. And, as Napier noted, it was labelled "interim", carrying a warning that it was unfinished, that Harper had not yet been interviewed, and that views expressed in it could change when it was completed.

Napier suggested Lewis was wrong to suspend Power "without waiting for the results of a preliminary investigation into the facts in order to allow him to decide whether the matter was of the more serious kind or not."

What's more, Napier found that Lewis and colleagues were "actively preparing for suspension" some time before anyone on Jersey, let alone Lewis, had read the interim report: Warcup, Power's new deputy and anointed successor, only received it on 10 November, two days before Power was suspended.

Napier said: "It would appear that the administration was actively preparing for suspension some time before the interim report was sent to Mr Warcup on 10 November and that those responsible for making preparations for suspension, should the minister so decide, were making significant assumptions about what the Metropolitan police report would contain."While accepting that mistakes were made in the inquiry, Power insists that had he ever been given a chance to appeal his suspension in a fair and impartial hearing, he would have "torn apart" the case against him. This week, Ian le Marquand, the current home affairs minister, said there was insufficient time to conclude such a complex hearing before Power retired in July 2010. While admitting the original suspension hearings were hasty, and that Power should have been given a proper hearing, Le Marquand maintained that sufficient grounds existed at the time for Power to be suspended. He argued that a report commissioned a long time after Power's original suspension –

written by the chief constable of the Wiltshire force – confirmed there were grounds for doubting Power's management.

Power is adamant he was targeted by an establishment riddled with conflicts of interest. "At the core of it all is the fact that as chief of police I was overseeing an investigation into serious child abuse in institutions run by the Jersey government which were themselves overseen by people who were still in positions of power within that government. In the midst of this I was suspended by the very government whose institutions were being investigated. You cannot get much more conflicted than that. It is not often that an organisation subject of a major criminal inquiry is able to suspend the police chief responsible for that enquiry. But in Jersey that happened."

It's an allegation Ian le Marquand rejects. "This simply does not stand up to any serious examination. The nature of the disciplinary complaints against Mr Power in relation to Haut de la Garenne is that he failed to exercise proper oversight over the deputy chief officer of police [Harper] who was acting as the senior investigating officer... By the time Mr Power was suspended he had had no role in relation to the investigation for some months. To therefore suggest that his original suspension had anything to do with his conduct of the investigation is simplyuntrue. In any eventuality there never was any evidence of criminal misconduct on the part of politicians or the government of Jersey in general."

• This article was amended on 29 June 2012. The original referred to charities that have been critical of the island for preventing, rather than providing, shelter to tax avoiders, and to allegations being refuted rather than rejected. This has been corrected.